"I’m just a country doctor," congressman says before telling FCC it screwed up.

The saga of LightSquared and its failed plan to build a nationwide LTE network on spectrum adjacent to that used by GPS receivers has been debated ad nauseam. But one party didn’t get involved until after LightSquared’s plan was defeated: the US House of Representatives committee with primary jurisdiction over the matter.

When its members got together today to discuss the LightSquared/GPS controversy, they freely admitted lacking any sort of technical expertise regarding GPS, cellular networks, or use of spectrum. But that didn’t stop most of them from blasting the FCC executives they called before them for favoring the needs of GPS users over those of LightSquared.

Today's hearing was held by the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which opened its investigation just after the FCC dismissed LightSquared's proposal in February. (For background, see Why LightSquared failed: It was science, not politics.) One of the few members sympathetic to the FCC, US Rep. Diana DeGette, (D-CO), noted that several other House committees examined the LightSquared/FCC matter over the past two years, but as the committee with primary jurisdiction she said she wishes "we’d looked at it sooner."

"I don't have the expertise"

"It’s not Congress’ role to make these kinds of detailed technical decisions. I don’t have the expertise to do so and nobody else on the committee does," DeGette said. "That's why Congress gave the authority to the FCC in the first place. I would be concerned if the FCC made politically motivated decisions or was swayed by political process, but I don’t think anybody here thinks that’s the case in this situation.” DeGette defended the FCC from accusations that, in her words, suggest the commission "is trying to arbitrarily sabotage this investment LightSquared has made, which is substantial." The FCC clearly based its decision on loads of public comment and scientific data, she said.

Yet lawmakers including Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) did blame the FCC for halting LightSquared’s plan even though government testing showed GPS receivers would receive harmful interference from the proposed cellular network, threatening public safety. "The company has lost $4 billion, the technology it had was a game changer," Stearns said. "The whole thing has been scuttled. What we're trying to do now is understand what solutions are available."

The issue is a complicated one. LightSquared controls L-Band spectrum in the 1525-1559 MHz block, just below the spectrum allocated to GPS systems. GPS devices have to pick up very weak signals from space, and as currently designed, most cannot filter out extremely strong signals from outside the GPS band, such as those from cellular networks.

The spectrum controlled by LightSquared was traditionally allocated for low-power satellite transmissions, which do not prevent GPS from functioning properly. In 2003, the FCC had relaxed rules on that L-band spectrum to permit integrated networks using both satellite and terrestrial components, provided applicants meet various qualifications. LightSquared acquired its spectrum in March 2010 and asked for a special government waiver to use that spectrum for high-power, ground-only transmissions in a nationwide wireless mobile broadband network. LightSquared wants to sell access to its network to carriers on a wholesale basis.

LightSquared’s signals wouldn’t bleed into the GPS band, but re-allocating the spectrum from satellite-only to a terrestrial use would cause problems for millions of legacy GPS devices that can’t filter out interference coming from outside their own spectrum.

GPS device makers had numerous opportunities during the past decade to raise concerns about the receiver overload interference issue that ultimately doomed LightSquared's network, according to the FCC. Instead, the GPS industry brought up other interference problems that were ultimately worked out, and waited until July 2010 to bring up the receiver overload interference problem.

There is broad agreement that GPS standards need to be tightened, but it almost certainly won't happen soon enough to allow LightSquared’s plan, which includes transmission to phones capable of receiving only terrestrial signals. The company did receive a conditional waiver from the FCC in January 2011 to build the network, but it was contingent on preventing any interference with GPS devices.

After extensive testing by the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) and others demonstrated GPS interference, the FCC withdrew its conditional approval of LightSquared’s plan in February of this year. Even LightSquared's proposal to use only the lower 10MHz of its allocation did not assuage all concerns. LightSquared subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection, but is still talking with government officials about alternatives such as a spectrum swap with the Department of Defense.

Two FCC officials, one angry committee

Two FCC officials testified at today’s hearing, Chief of Engineering and Technology Julius Knapp, and International Bureau Chief Mindel De La Torre.

In a memo referenced at the hearing, De La Torre wrote that "We will not endanger one person on an airplane, one soldier, one boater, or one driver who relies on GPS service." DeGette quoted from that memo, and while she said LightSquared got into its predicament "through no fault of their own," she agreed that priority must be given to national security, airplane communications, and the like.

Knapp and De La Torre tried to explain the nuances and difficulties of the LightSquared/GPS decision, but were repeatedly cut off by Stearns, who demanded yes-or-no answers to questions the FCC officials said did not have easy answers.

Comparing GPS and LightSquared spectrum use to a traffic-filled highway (an analogy previously used by FCC officials), Stearns had this exchange with De La Torre:

Stearns: “Each operator has the responsibility to stay in its lane, using your analogy, is that correct?"

De La Torre: "Yes."

Stearns: “When one operator veers into the adjacent lane, is it the responsibility of an operator to correct its course, or is it the role of the FCC to patrol the highway? Briefly."

De La Torre: “Really, what was happening here was…”

Stearns: “Isn’t it the responsibility of the operator to correct its course? Yes or no?”

De La Torre. “It’s a difficult question. That’s the question that's before us, and I think…”

Stearns: “Yes or no? I'm asking for a yes or no, to the best of your ability.”

De La Torre: “I think they do have a duty to respond…”

Stearns: “OK, I'm going to take that as a yes.”

US Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) criticized the FCC officials for the timing of the comment period before it issued LightSquared’s conditional waiver on Jan. 26, 2011. "Bear in mind, I’m just a simple country doctor, I'm not an engineer," Burgess said. "But it seems like you drop it between Thanksgiving and Christmas, it looks like Harry Reid's health care bill to me. That's not a time when a lot of people are paying attention."

What's more important, GPS or an iPhone?

US Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), an avid boater, said he understands the importance of GPS for safely finding one’s way home. But, "on the flip side," he said, more spectrum devoted to iPhones can improve safety too. "Just as much as GPS is essential there are thousands of people offshore every day that would have a huge safety factor if they could pull up an iPhone, and from 200 miles offshore be able to call for emergency services," he said. "This has a safety issue going both ways."

Bilbray said GPS shouldn’t have "squatters’ rights" over LightSquared spectrum, and expressed disdain for the favorable treatment public safety organizations are given. "Because we’re public safety, we get to drive in the left lane all the time without having to show reasonable application," he said.

But the FCC is required to place a higher priority on public safety, Knapp explained. "We're governed by the public interest standard. In this case, even though it's a difficult decision, we cannot put at risk things like air safety, or defense or 911 systems," he said.

What the hearing actually accomplished aside from some finger-wagging isn’t exactly clear. There was some talk about whether GPS companies should have raised concerns about interference earlier in the process, whether interference will continue to be a problem for cellular providers expanding wireless networks, and whether the L-band can ever be used for the type of network LightSquared proposed. But no votes were taken, and no potential solutions were described in-depth. Knapp noted that proposals still on the table include taking federally controlled spectrum and re-allocating it to LightSquared.

Stearns seems to want the FCC to come up with some way of saving LightSquared right away, and asked Knapp several times if there is a solution. He wasn't satisfied by his answers.

Stearns: "In your mind's eye, can this problem be solved?"

Knapp: "I think the…"

Stearns: "Just yes or no."

Knapp: "I can't answer yes or no because just as we when went into this, once you've worked through the problems you don't know the answer."

Stearns: "Well, describe what your solution would be."

Knapp: "I can't describe what my solution would be. I know that there are ideas that are on the table that we will consider."

Stearns: "And do you endorse any of those ideas?"

Knapp: "We have an open proceeding, it would prejudice the outcome for me to endorse one or the other."

Stearns: "Well, as an electrical engineer don't you think this could be solved?"

Knapp: "As an electrical engineer we always strive to solve the problem, but there's no certainty that you're going to get an answer."

Stearns (laughing): "You've got to pass the exam, and it's either yes or no."

Stearns concluded by saying "all of us are frustrated by this huge innovation leap here and the loss of this company."

Promoted Comments

I'm not sure why congress thinks they need to get in here and fix this. LightSquared proposed to do something, and ultimately it ended up unfeasible within the constraints of technology and the law. That's unfortunate for LightSquared, but why should the US government have an obligation to fix things for them? E.g. exchange of spectrum with the DoD.

I could see a role for congress if it turned out the FCC is wrong and it is workable without interfering with existing usage of spectrum (but no one is arguing that) and certainly if the FCC did approve it and it was discovered to be a problem after the fact. Cases where the FCC did not do their duty. But here they said you can do it within X limits, LightSquared is unable to do so, issue should be settled.

What frustrates me is how many people in tech do not understand this, despite running into dead ends all the time in their own work. I constantly hear that solving major issues is just a technical challenge for resources and manpower, rather than potentially a dead end with no solution.

the filter that would be required for commercial and safety applications comes out to be the size of a large fire extinguisher, and cost more then a used car for each and every device that would want to know its location within 10 yards or so....for applications that were considered mission critical like landing planes, no amount of filtering would give the proper tuning/resolution they would need to ensure the proper safety allowances...sorry, "not technically possible with current hardware and funding" is a valid answer